The notion that courts generally defer to arbitrators is well established around the globe. But there are exceptions. We have discussed in previous columns (1) that courts sometimes refuse to enforce arbitral awards because, though often couched in other terms, they essentially believe that arbitrators strayed too far from the result the courts think is correct, (2) that courts do not always allow arbitrators to decide the issue of whether a dispute is arbitrable, and (3) the court-created ground for refusing to enforce an arbitral award known as “manifest disregard of the law.” In this column, we look at three recent decisions on these issues from three different countries.

Award Vacated for Refusing To Hear Witnesses

In CBP v. CBS, [2020] SGHC 23, a decision by a first-instance court in Singapore, the court dealt with a dispute arising out of an agreement to purchase coal, that included an agreement to arbitrate under the Rules of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA). An arbitration ensued between the buyer and a bank to which the seller’s rights had been assigned. The heart of the dispute concerned a meeting that took place in December 2015.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]